Nokia sends National Geographic photog into the American West with a Lumia 1020

Stephen Alvarez used a Lumia 1020 to take photos from Utah to Arizona.

Sometimes, a PR stunt can be pretty cool. Nokia sent National Geographic photographer Stephen Alvarez into the American West to take photos with its latest flagship phone, the Lumia 1020. With a 41MP camera outputting maximum file sizes of 34MP to 38MP (depending on aspect ratio), the Lumia 1020 captured canyons in grand style.

Check out more of Alvarez's shots below and click on the photos to open them in their massive full-resolution.

Comments

Lots of passion in this discussion, but you can’t really compare a DSLR to a camera phone. Mr. Alvarez is a talented photographer, you can see it in his composition, but if you look at his work on the National Geographic site you can see what a difference the tool can make in the right hands. You should also see that, as good as they are, these pictures are not up to his normal standard. The Nokia is no DSLR, but it sure is better than the camera in my pocket right now.

I did it. Still don't like any of them. Too ordinary to be compared to paintings and beautiful women. And the night shot is tilted. I'm sure Mr Alvarez could do better. Left to his own devices he'd certainly use a decent DSLR, but this is a paid job... oh well.

but his exact words were “Since the Nokia Lumia 1020 is so small and light I can actually compose shots from some pretty crazy positions. I find myself being much more creative with this little phone than I might be with my DSLR.”

I think a lot of people missing the point here... Sure, pixel peeping can be something we get carried away with... sure, we can downsample these huge images to something smaller and they look great... sure we can accept some mediocre pixel level detail because it's a camera phone... And yes, these are beautiful images shot by a great photographer.

The real question... if we're not planning to look at the pixel level detail, and we're going to downsample the image to a smaller size for clean, viewing enjoyment, why bother capturing 38 million mediocre pixels that don't actually show more detail than 16 million pixels? It seems to me, the point of capturing so many pixels is to make bigger, more detailed prints... if we don't actually have that kind of quality at the pixel level, why not start with 16 million higher quality pixels on that large sensor and skip the downsampling stage? I wonder if Alvarez would have preferred fewer, higher quality pixels.

I have mostly believed that fewer, larger, happier and prettier pixels are better. It does seem like so many pixels to only later downsize is a waste.

There are some arguments that more pixels is not all bad, though. Say we got a 16MP image that is suitable to print 8x12 inches. A 24MP image looks rougher at 100% and needs to be sized down further... it also makes only a suitable 8x12" print. There are arguments that the 24MP image will make a better print. No larger, but better.. I don't really understand the details. Also, the better the light, the more pixels are useable. In good light, maybe the 24MP print could be bigger.

So, there is that argument as well as the digital zoom Nokia likes to trade some of the pixels for.

Even with the argument above between 16 & 24MP, I am not so sure the HTC (is it HTC?) 4MP cameras are a bad deal. File sizes should be smaller. Image quality is about as good? Easier to upload or whatever. Which is better for the cell cameras.. ??

Gotta love the pixel peepers here. They spend so much time worrying about pixels that they miss out on all of the awesome images they should be taking. And to be honest, I could take a cell phone picture against your dslr image and beat the lot of you.

Taking exactly the same image, same photographer, same mounted position using a tripod and all that faff to ensure equal and fair test conditions; a dslr (or m4/3, pro larger sensor compact, or even god forbid a compact FILM camera like a canon QL17, scanned negs) should DESTROY a smart phone. Smart phone fanboys are living in a dream world.

(88SAL) is correct. The point is, if you're in the Grand-freaking-Canyon, why would you take ANYTHING but the best you have in your toolbox, vs using inferior equipment just to prove a point?

Obviously one can go crazy with this. What if you own a Nikon D800 & a Nikon D3200 and take the latter vs the former in because it's lighter? I can't imagine faulting someone for that, especially in a Grand Canyon scenario where you're hiking a lot. Heck I find I use my Sony NEX-C3 all the time so much I sold my D5100, but the thing is, their IQ is equal as they use the same sensor.

But yes I was in the Grand Canyon in late 2005, my best camera then was a Nikon D50 I paid $500 for at huge discount, which now is squashed by a Nikon D3100 kit I bought for $250 for my wife to use for snapshots, but at that time it was the best I had. I can't imagine consciously choosing something significantly inferior to that when I was in the scenic Grand Canyon just to prove a point.

This article is totally relevant, and there are millions of dslr photos of the grand canyon so we dont really need any more, I think some of you have missed a very simple point, they wanted to try using the phone for pictures so they did, in no way are they trying to better a Nikon or Canon full frame sensor.

I know the Apple Iphone can do so much better,, thats why your all upset really,,,

As usual, this thread is full of posts from camera snobs, gearheads, weenies and wannnabees who are jealous of Alvarez' technical skills.These photos are fantastic and the 1020 is a great little camera.The posters criticizing these photos are jealous because they know that National Geographic will never ever ask them to take photos.

I was at GCNP south rim a few years ago, it is hard to get a clear picture as there are always haze and smoke. Making things worst is I forgot to take my circular polarizer. FWIW, here is a similar shot, taken by a D90.

http://sdrv.ms/196sGus

Looking at the last pic, the exposure and dynamic range are impressive, but don't know why the aperture stuck at f/2.2.

@Tan68, it could benefit from smaller aperture, perhaps the aperture of 1020 is fixed. But comparing to the one I took with D90. The 1020 only uses 1/20 (5%) of the exposure time and the result still contains lots of details and dynamic range (see the sun streaks and shadow details). The sensor definitely has potential. The noise maybe a step down from Pureview 808 but the IS and more portable size are a nice gain. Hopefully Nokia will add a true optical zoom next. Samsung and Sony are working on optical zoom on camera phones too. I like sony's approach (zoom adapter)as it will prove to be cheaper in the long run.

The Lumia 1020 appears to be "usable" when it comesto setting exposure and metering, but the image qualityappears to have taken a step backwards from the 808.

The 808 camera app usually comes up quickly, and the shotto shot time isn't unnaturally slow as the 1020's is. If the 808'sshutter speed could be adjusted manually, then I could workaround its unpredictable metering outdoors!

The software control feature set on the 1020 is indeed quite amazing. It has the ability to manual focus, manual expose by setting shutter and ISO manually, or you can set any one variable to auto, and use exposure compensation.

The 808 in comparison can only adjust shutter indirectly using the exposure meter, and ND filter , while fixing a set ISO.

As for the unpredictable metering, have you considered trying Camera Pro. it is a 3rd party app that allows for better auto ISO settings, where there is preference to keep the shutter. Also it supports adjustable metering modes like center weight, etc.

So..., what is the point...? What does it matter with whatever camera you take you pics? For fun, social media or professionally. I don't understand that this have to be on dPreviews front-page!

What happened to all those great reviews? I've been a reader/visitor of dPreview almost from start. The last two years more and more I find myself checked other photography website more and more and dPreview less. I'm not the only one who mention this. But I don't see much progress. I still do like to read the announcements and reviews. But something is missing, what wasn't a few years ago.

The basis of these types of negative posts is quite clear.By exaggerating, huffing and puffing, some posters think it makes them look like they passionately know what they are talking about and possess knowledge and skill that is superior to actual professionals.

They simply are seeking attention and enjoy seeing their names "in lights".

These photos look great on my 24" IPS display. If you need to pp them in any way, then go ahead. They still look great.. even more impressive that they came from a multi-purpose pocket device.

I do not understand how these items may be of interest in DPR. If the purpose is to talk about every type of photography then why not post articles or reviews on webcam, tablet or any object that makes photos (maybe the clock 007 Agent). :-) As a lover of photography amateur and professional I can only consider articles about real cameras ..... to each his own field.The pictures are the ones that are considering their quality. A snap remember a walk? .... No offense to Stephen Alvarez but if Nokia had called me for the service I would have refused. The gadgets let them packages of potatoes and snacks.Please please please.....sorry sorry sorry

You don't understand how an article containing great photos is of no interest to DPR?You think only photos taken with a DSLR or :real camera" should be considered?Your post is one of the most stupid I have read in a long time.

I am surprised to see these type of comments in DPR. I think users here are wiser not to focus on pixel peeping, am I wrong?

The pictures look decent to me but seems too much compression. geotag2.jpg was taken with 0.8sec exposure and probably on a steering wheel, so it is a automatic failure, still the IS seems to perform quite well. My question is why the camera not pick a higher ISO.

I understand the desire for portability in such cases, heck I just sold my D5100 after YEARS of having DSLRs (since Nov 2004), sometimes more than one, because anymore I use mirrorless anyway. Anymore you can get great photos with cameras that aren't DSLRs, thanks to m4/3rds and Sony NEX etc.

But a PHONE? Come on now.

There are options such as the Sony NEX-C3 I use or the newer Sony NEX-3N. Mount the Sigma 19mm f/2.8 and you hardly even know it's there & yet it EQUALS the image quality of my prior D5100 or the well-regarded D7000. Heck there are options like the Panasonic GX7 or the Olympus OM-D/E-M5, all of which give you DSLR quality in a smaller package, & all still easily eclipse even the best smartphone cameras by a long shot. Cell phone shots are fine for teens doing "selfies" & the other snapshooting people, but serious photography--please.

I note many here complain about the IQ. I liken this to the "dog that sings Opera"...yes, it sings Opera badly, but don't lose sight of the fact that the dog sings!

That said, this is a cell-phone. If you need to get the shot, you can do so in grand style with 41MP. Yes, the IQ isn't up to snuff compared to say a Nikon D800, or a Canon 5D Mark III...but it is quite good for what it is - a cell phone camera. It will only improve with time.

Will I go out and buy one? Probably not, since it is married to Windows Phone. If they market this for IOS, I would definitely consider it.

Those pictures would not be acceptable to me in a $150 compact, but they are ok for a phone.

Still on the fence about getting a 1020, I hoped for cleaner shots here but when zooming in to the pics above they are not impressive. Disappointing that some of them are just plain bad photos, regardless of the camera.

I think they are I bought my 808 in May.. And it took me a week to find it. Even the official Nokia stores didn't have them. And when asking for the phone a different stores, some said it don't exists lol, other never even know of it. But I found in a Nokia store in a different city. And I use it for snapshots, and when going to concerts :)

Well it's a fair bit of publicity, and the camera can be shown to compare with consumer P&S. I think the main attraction here is that it's essentially a 'one device really can do all' kind of thing. If you can live with the soft detail.

If I was backpacking/camping in the grand canyon then sure. Otherwise, personally, I prefer a dedicated camera.

And I can't see from these examples where all of that resolution is supposed to be? 18-20 MP might have been better, though I don't claim to understand the maths.

Another publicity stunt. I don't like to see DPR subscribing this push for inferior quality.Now let's see those guys at NatGeo photographing lions and leopards with mobile phones. (And I mean in wildlife, not at the zoo.)And that night shot just made me laugh. What are they trying to prove with a picture that is blurred in every plane?

yeah, Nokia said the quality would be equal to the 808, but that's only true if the IS is usefull (to keep ISO low). In bright daylight, the 808 produces much more detail. The 1020 shots are only really sharp at roughly 1/3rd of the resolution, whereas 2/3rd size is perfectly sharp on the 808. Wondering whether the 1020 even wins it from the S4 in bright daylight. At low ISO that phone also takes very good pictures.

Doing a few resizes I estimate the ISO100 image with the guy on the cliff has between 3 and 4 MP of image. Well, that's more than enough although obviously the digital zoom is a zombie feature.

The upside does seem to be DR. Looking at the reflection of the water and the silhouette I believe I'm seeing quite decent DR. To my mind it's DR that makes all the difference, all else being acceptable (CA, sharpness etc).

100% agree, it's annoying and unnecessary, whenever I ctrl-click to open a 'connect' article from the main page, it ignores it and opens in the current tab - this is not what any of the non 'connect' articles do. DPreview - is this intentional or just a mistake? Either way please fix it!

While visiting the SW I shot with my regular camera.I recognize most of the places here.However, I also used my Iphone to shoot, process and upload first sample images while on the road (think: "look, family, we are now here...").Those images are numbers 26-65 in this gallery:http://roelh.zenfolio.com/p402011222Real final photos elsewhere on my pages.

Conventional to the point it may seem overdone? Sure, but that doesn't = "cheesy". Cheesy means bad, whereas this stuff is so good that it's obvious/boring to you. Hey, this scenery is amazing, and it's not its fault it's highly photographed. I can't tell if it's your analysis that's off or just your vocabulary. Either way, the comments in this section seem like an exercise of one-upsmanship in perfunctory negativity.

I'm not a huge fan of using camera phones for photography but I think most of the negatives here are really missing the point.. Consider what was used to take these photos.. don't try to compare to a DSLR or high-end point and shoot.. just remember what was used.. and then it's pretty damn good.

I took one of these photos and ran a little noise suppression on it and it cleaned up very well.

Just remember.. it was taken with a camera phone and don't take it as a threat to your beloved _____________ (fill in the blank)!

Pretty amazing technology... and that is not to discount the skill of the photographer.. it just shows what can be done with a minimum of equipment.

Considering what they are taken with they are not good. There is far to much smearing which is very noticeable even at small sizes. Smearing which you don't see on a Samsung s4 or iPhone 5 or 4s. Yes the DR is good but far to much detail is being lost to NR and not a great lens for a mobile phone.

Impressive? I can get nighttime shots on my dslr with high iso with about the same amount of noise as these shots in the middle of the day with Probably low iso. Just shows why smart photogs use real cameras!

This issue always comes up, the one of being that you're only as good as the tools you use. When you also consider that skills matter, and where do they fit? It's really not a blurry line.

How many of you have shot a great image on a DSLR, only to hear others comment along the lines of "Well, yeah. That's a big camera, of course."? But shoot something great with a pocket cam or phone and it's "Man. He's got the skills."

Let me tell you something, it was always about the skills. You see, I could do a lot of things with an iPhone, but I have to admit that there are much better tools that accomplish those same goals, and then some.

So, while vendors would like you read these kinds of articles and think about the phone, the real hero is Stephen and his skillful application. Bravo to you, Sir.